Related Textbooks:

Philosophy 160 Winter 2008 Review Topics for Midterm Examination The midterm examination will be given during the normal class meeting time, on Wednesday, February 18th . Be sure to bring bluebooks. In reviewing for the exam, the following are important sources: - The readings - Your lecture notes - The hand-outs and PowerPoints posted on C-Tools - Rachels and Rachels - Review session, Monday, February 16th, evening ? place and time to be announced. The exam will be divided into two sections. In Section I, you will be given a list of 6 or so items, from which you are to choose 3. For each item you will have 10 minutes to: Briefly identify, define, or explain the item, indicating (where appropriate) which author or authors introduced or made significant use of the item. Give an example (or examples) that illustrate the item. Indicate briefly the significance of the item for our course so far. In Section II, you will be given a choice between two short essay questions. You will have 20 minutes to answer the question you choose. Make sure that you address all the components of the question, each of which will be listed as (i), (ii), (iii), etc. Here is a list of the items from which the questions in both sections will be drawn: Why Hobbes thinks a commonwealth imposed by force can still command obedience One of Hobbe?s claims is that fear makes you rational, and that everything that is voluntary you do because you want to or because you want to avoid greater harm Therefore, people will obey in fear of what will happen if they do not Hobbe?s says that in order to get out of a State of Nature, there must be rules that govern relationships The people must then decide on an agency, the state that has power to enforce these rules This agreement is called the Social Contract Theory The overall claim is that ?the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living? Tacit vs. hypothetical consent (from Railton?s example) Tacit consent is a form of actual, non-hypothetical consent It involves no explicit expression of agreement- it is ?implied? Tacit consent is given when someone who could object to the agreement or refuse to accept it, does not do so Ex. Tourists who enter county tacitly consent to follow the rules/laws of country, if they say they do not want to abide by laws, they should not have come at all. Hypothetical consent is not actually consent, but it is an idea of what a person would consent to in a circumstance in which they were given a voluntary choice Ex. Rawl?s ?original position?( what people would consent to in a fair choice situation Ex. Living in a house with 4 people, only 3 are present when discussing payment for TV cable, but it is assumed that the 4th roommate will pitch in equally for the cable. They later claim that they won?t pay because he wasn?t asked about this before, but you can say that he would have agreed to it if he were there to be asked, so he can?t use the fact that he wasn?t there as an excuse not to pay. Autonomy vs. heteronomy Autonomy is being a law to ourselves, or self law Human desires do no necessitate action Reflect upon their desires and decide which will be effective in their actions Govern your own actions because of capacity for reflection and choice Humans make and follow own law Can chose to be governed by moral principle We are aware that we have this freedom Capacity to obey a law gives oneself autonomy Autonomy requires that one be able to: Divorce oneself from particular desires, passions, and interests Reflect, asking what one has reason to do Weigh these reasons, does it equal the strengths of one?s desires? Decide what to do- which goal or action is best to endorse or purse? Put decision into practice- make it effective All of this will make the action one?s own and not a product of circumstance and psychology Heteronomy is causal law (Need more on this one) Conventional- what you do produces a particular outcome Ex. Animals are governed by appetitive ad inclinations, caused by desires Causal law Being driven by choices that are not of given by themselves Not rational laws Before you can have action, you must exert will You?re will can either act on or deny these Show you are either acting for a reason or are irrational Hobbes' conception of rationality vs. Kant's Hobbes? rationality From a Normative Side He explains that under the social contract it is rational for all to agree to lay down their rights equally (reserving only a right to sel-defense) and in the same act create and authorize an overawing sovereign Rational individuals recognize that laws of nature are necessary and legit Ex. Keep covenants, respect persons/property, be accommodating Rational individuals respect particular laws of nature out of in foro interno rational motivation He explains rational self-interest is a dominant strategy Game- whatever your opponent does, you do best by taking the same action (example- prisoners dilemma) If a state of nature continues, the dominant strategy is ?always defect? Rationality makes like remain solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short Kant?s concept of rationality is explained through the notion of positive freedom Positive Freedom is the ability to make ones rational will effective Only rational beings have positive freedome because rational beings can take care of themselves Ex. Dogs or babies don?t have positive freedom because they are not rational- they lack the ability to organize life in accord of what it needs Rational principle of the categorical imperative( it?s a risk, but if you can see the reward in the end, it is more desirable Categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives Imperative (in general)- an objective principle of the will A command, not an incentive Categorical- a will that presupposes no further end, can be defended/shared with all Moral imperative must be categorical Any will/maxim we might choose to act upon can be tested Could you will this as a universal law at the same time? Ex. Golden Rule( do unto others as you would have other do unto you ?Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own persons or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as a means only.? Hypothetical- to will an end one must will the means Defends an action if the end is defensible Hypothetical social contract Explains the importance of a fair procedure Ex. Dividing up a cake- you cut the cake but your brother gets to pick the piece first Ex. Angel of death Acting under the idea of freedom Both positive and negative freedom Negative freedom- absence of external constrains, independence Hobbes explains, freedom is the silence of the law Positive freedom- ability to make one?s rational will effective (relates to rationality, see above) Non-rational beings (babies, dogs- negative freedom) can not organize life in accord of what they need Govern own life in accord to your own needs But, absence of external constraints is insufficient Rousseau explains- slavery to the passions is not freedom Kant explains- freedom requires self-governance in accord with principles one gives to oneself (from review session) Hobbes- good for a person is just equal to what x desires, or what x rationally desires In going from nature to civil society, appeal to fear Good or bad is threatening vs. promising Civil society is promising, nature is threatening, so this is a sufficient way to get from nature to civil society Fool( short sighted, oh, well I could lie and decive and still get away with it if I could fool people, it would allow me to get away with it No, fool is based on flaws of others in not catching the lie Little kid who can?t control appetite, needs to have it now Wait until dinner time to have a good meal Incompetent of fulfilling long-term desires Problem- prisoners dilemma (problem for a system) Kant thinks we can contract acting from inclination and acting for a reason Dogs run free, why can?t we. Dogs act from inclination, goal directed beings? but not rational Incapable of acting for a reason Inclination( what you desire and what you believe leads directly to an action What about that desire? Should I satisfy it or not? It?s not WHAT do I desire? It can only be answers by making up my mind about whether I ought to follow my desires Dog?s don?t ask thing because they do not have the means to ask ?ought? Humans ask ought before act Humans are therefore rational Involves notion of ought, and therefore involves idea of a principle or a law An ought follows from a principle Action contrary to law or principle that I believe There is a reason not to do what I most want to do Autonomy( self law, you chose what you do Only follow a law or a principle if you could give yourself a law and hold yourself to it Be capable of self governance You don?t have it as a little kid Ex. Kid going to beach, but doesn?t want to get in the car. Won?t get to beach without getting into car Self-governance requires that we have a freedom If you say you can deal with the car and sit through it, you can do it. Self determination freedom Whenever you chose, you treat yourself as free (you can?t help it) Cannot escape this Freedom of choice, self governance, categorical imperative- can have a law Respect for persons as a basis for morality (Kant) Fair procedure shows respect for persons Treating ourselves and others as ends, not as mere means Take other people?s goals as important as own Respect others as fellow foal pursuers and not as tolls to your means Utilitarian approach to this( regard others pleasures/pains as relevant Look at well-being of each person "Treat oneself and others always as ends, never as means alone" Kantian theory See above for explanation of this This encompasses the ideas of negative and positive freedoms and autonomy Ex. Lying promise (from review session) If telling a lying promise Kant says you are treating them as a means- produce goal of my own That person abused your trust and took advantage of it Reduced you to a means to carry out their plan Not respected humanity that is in you Equivalent to law you could will to be the law of all rational beings Treating them as a source of ends, ends are not desires, they come from endorsing a desire/goal or making it an end How the utilitarian extends a principle of "equal concern" (impartiality) for well- being with respect to moments of time within one's life to a principle of "equal concern" (impartiality) for well-being across different lives Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and Mills explains the quality of pleasure as a good Well-being in moments of time within one?s life refers to happiness over time Impartiality across moments When you make decisions across time, you must be impartial of considering each moment of your life equally Well-being across different lives refers to happiness across persons There is impartiality across individuals- they all have equal weighting Count other people?s happiness in the same way you count your own Is any one person?s pleasure greater than another?s? The ideal spectator- other people look like you; other person?s future pain is the same as your so you should weigh it all equally Morality is treating all happiness alike Always act in such a way that regards all happiness alike in both time and persons What good we?re striving for? Bentham- pleasure of any force Mills- higher and lower pleasures Total net sum of happiness- make a few people unhappy but make a LOT of people very happy Happiness should be promoted but it is important to have the average level of happiness Consequentialism- maximizing own happiness of all man kind Distributive justice (Rawls) Justice in distribution is the result of a fair procedure for free and equal individuals to decide how to distribute the mutual benefits of social cooperation Explains how rights and power are distributed in society Fairness- dividing a cake up It is the procedure that is important- who is cutting the cake, who is picking the first piece If you cut and pick the first piece, you will cut a larger piece for yourself since you know you will get it If you cut and other picks, you will cut fairly so that you will be get the worse end of the deal *Equality- treating things equally *Desert- what people deserve by virtue of their conduct The two basic elements of consequentialist theories and their relationship Utilitarianism- greatest good for the greatest number of people Nothing to do with usefulness Ex. Buy the care that enhances your well-being People naturally try to do what will help their well-being Ex. Try to exceed/win, do not try to get sick/hurt Foundation of morality *Deontology- the right is prior to the good ? Act- vs. rule-utilitarianism Act Act x is right iff x is, of the acts available to the agent, the one with the greatest tendency to promote the good of all affected Good for everyone Ex. If someone is sick and asks how they look, you are allowed to lie and say good because it will benefit them This focuses on the outcome Rule Act x is right iff x is in accord with the set of rules which, if generally followed, would produce the greatest good for all affected. Not if it produces the best consequences Diminishing marginal utility Utilitarianism As you proceed, things loose value because you are less interested in having more. The next unit Ex. As you buy movie tickets the value gets less because it is less desirable to buy more if you already have one Distribute in direction of scarcity If people lack goods, distribute in their direction and get more utility from them as opposed to if you distribute in the direction of abundance Works towards equality- broader distribution Some examples to be able to describe and use: Cutting the clown cake This refers to a fair procedure. In order to create the greatest fairness, you cut the cake and your sibling has first pick on the slice of cake If you cut your own cake and were able to pick the piece, you would cut it unfairly to benefit yourself and give yourself the larger piece If your sibling were to cut it and pick it also, he could also cut it unfairly and cut it himself. Therefore, if you cut it and they pick the first piece it will be fair because you do not want to get the smaller half of the cake. You will cut it down the middle. The unyielding political dissident rotting in jail Example of treating someone as an end Running a society where a person represent a group that you don?t really like (ex. Religious meaning) Person is in jail for this Even if you don?t like them, it is getting to you that they are in jail For the sake of their principles, they are accepting life in prison Because they had a principle and held them to that principle, did not give up principle for the sake of not being put into jail You have a respect for this person b/c making such a large sacrifice for the principle they are making When you see this, it strives down our self conceit Could I do that? Would I have the guts/willingness/sacrifice? Are they a better person? Respect is the tribute we cannot pay to merit Person is refusing to let self be treated as means The natural lottery Under topic of hypothetical Social contract We are born into a certain situation (of living, race, gender, religion, ect.) What did you do to deserve your parent?s wealth? Ex. It is luck that Rawls survived his illness and is alive Differences are not morally relevant- they are not deserved We cannot determine morality of situation ?those better endowed, or more fortunate in their social position, neither of which [they] can be said to deserve Rawls- benefit most well off Nozick- fact of the matter, this is what it is, it?s not your responsibility The angel?s visits Notion of morally irrelevant information Under the topic of the hypothetical Social Contract (Rawls) The angel of death is to pass over the town and take parents If it is anonymous as to who is picked, it is fair We should not be concerned with their children are being taken Should be concerned about how to take care of an orphaned child Room 505 There are 5 men in need of organs There is man in room 505 that does not have anything seriously wrong with him and has the appropriate organs for there 5 men It is wrong to kill this man to save the other 5 Act utilitarianism would immediately start to chop him up From my discussion today- Rightness/Goodness Utilitarianism/Consequentialism(decide what?s good (happiness=intrinsically good) Right= maximize good in the world No implication for something being food or right Good Fundamental How many people are happy/how happy they are Right independent of good Respecting/treating others in certain ways Acting on universal principles Mills against Bentham B- all pleasures are a like so eating mashed potatoes is equal pleasure to having an intellectual breakthrough M- all pleasures not alike( higher pleasures/lower pleasures Both- maximize happiness M- maximize certain type of pleasure Argues against idea that utilitarianism is for swine Humans have higher pleasures than swine

Advertisement

Want to see the other 8 page(s) in Midterm Review?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!